Re: Is hyper more natural than hypo?

[P3D Michael Kersenbrock <michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 > Dr T. writes:
 >
 > Assuming I record a familiar scene with half (hypo) and twice (hyper) the
 > normal interocular distance.  What is more likely an observer to
 > characterize as unusual (unatural?) the hypo or hyper?
 
 I suspect it would depend upon the distance of the subject.  Clearly, if
 the subject is at infinity (like a Grand Canyon far-rim shot) both ways
 will look identical.  With a close-up, the hypo would look better when
 subject distance happens to be at approximately the 1/30 rule (etc).
 Other images (probably with only medium distant subjects) may have the hyper
 looking more natural.  People's sense of natural are different too.  
 I give these  examples because in my mind they seem to show that 
 subject-distance is an  independent variable that probably would 
 affect the answer, whatever the answer is. 
 
 Might not the viewing situation also make a difference (being in front of 
 or behind the "ortho" chair in a projection showing)?  Seems like if depth
 is already being exaggerated by being back where the projector is, a hyper
 view might be made "worse" and a "hypo" better -- everything else being 
 vaguely constant.
 
 I'm all confused now, what was the question again?  :-)
 
 Mike K.


 P.S. - I posted this earlier, but it bounced.  I've a new Sun
        Ultra workstation and the upgrade changed my email address
        a little (old one will work TO me, but mail puts a 
        different "replyto:" in my out-going mail, ignoring my 
        shell variable).


------------------------------